I had a GREAT debate . . . three debates in a row, actually . . . against John Rankin of the Theological Education Institute in Connecticut this week. Topic: "Is the bible full or errors and deceit?" A recording of one of the events will be available.

As I get my notes together, or a transcript, I will post some of the examples here.

- - - - - - -

I won't have a lot of time to jump in to this blog . . . but here is my first contribution.

Based on the mere possibility that there might be a god of judgment, many believers ask, "What if you are wrong?"

As if we nonbelievers have never thought of such a question.

So I turn it around and suggest another possibility, one that would not be any less likely than theirs:

"Maybe there is a god, but he is only going to reward those people who have enough courage NOT to believe in him."

"Maybe there is a god, but he is only going to reward those people who have enough courage NOT to believe in him."

Why would it take courage to not believe in him? Seriously, I think this demonstrates an underlying presupposition. It takes courage to do something difficult--to deny something that's true, for example, and to hold to that falsehood regardless of any evidence presented to you....

Despite what your post is attempting, I think this says more about you than it does about theism.

Welcome to the blog! As for the question "What if you are wrong?"- my response is actually apathy. I really don't care if I am wrong. If I am wrong, the Christian god can just get it all over with and send me to hell without using his followers to try and scare me back into the fold. If I am wrong, what difference does it make? I'm going to "Hell" anyways, I doubt anything can make me love 'Yahweh', and so why not just get it over with and take my rightful place in "Hell"?

Hmmm, let's see. Why would it take courage not to accept to share a belief in God that permeates your society?

Well, here's one. Let's say that I wanted to be the president of the United States. Would I have a chance in your god's hell if I announced that I was an atheist? Absolutely not!

Atheists are a minority voice in a sea of theism. We are constantly said to be "proud" and "foolish" by Christians--who just so happen to constitute an overwhelming majority in this country.

You wrote: "It takes courage to do something difficult--to deny something that's true, for example, and to hold to that falsehood regardless of any evidence presented to you..."

No, it takes courage to stand up against a ridiculous myth that has been passed along for generations and that dominates all of the power structures of our society.

And what do you mean "regardless of any evidence presented to you. . ."

Perhaps you forgot about this comment section in which I begged you to present "an argument for the existence of your god" and you responded:

Why should I waste my time in presenting something to you that I know is impossible for you to grasp in your given state?

And now you have the audacity to accuse us of holding to a "falsehood regardless of any evidence presented to you...."

What evidence? Present it, pal! I begged you to before and you refused; now you are trying to mock atheists for not being persuaded by evidence that you refuse to give!

Here is your chance! Give us this evidence. You have said it can be presented, so do it. What is your argument for the existence of a god?

[I don't know why I even bother asking, you are only going to refuse the question anyway. You'll back away from this statement that says that evidence can be presented to atheists and you'll start your whole "what is your foundation for the laws of logic" argument. I'll point you to my post about this and you won't be able to understand it again. *sigh* Let the avoidance begin.]

Supposing one granted god-belief claims any hint of validity to begin with, I can understand someone having to summon up courage to admit that they are not true. This would be due to the fact that god-belief claims are always backed up by threats of some kind in the final analysis. If someone puts stock in those threats, then he would need at least some courage to defy them.

Calvindude: "Seriously, I think this demonstrates an underlying presupposition. It takes courage to do something difficult--to deny something that's true, for example, and to hold to that falsehood regardless of any evidence presented to you...."

Sounds a lot like many Christians I know.

Calvindude: "Despite what your post is attempting, I think this says more about you than it does about theism."

I notice you did not address the question. I'll repeat it for you in case you didn't see it: "What if YOU are wrong!?!"

>>>What if christians have to go to the Muslim hell because they rejected the Muslim plan of salvation?

Islam is a Christian heresy. It doesn't exist without the Old and New Testaments, yet it denies the truth of the Old and New Testaments. It is, by biblical definition, an antichrist heresy in that it denies Jesus is God come in the flesh. Like the symbol they put on their mosques and flags Islam is a moon reflecting the light of the Christian sun and pretending it is its own light. This is what the devil does, he impersonates an angel of light.

To answer your question, I'll just pull a page from your own book. If the God that really exists is so dishonest as to want people to not believe in him in order to receive an award, that's not the kind of God I would worship anyway. So I'll burn in hell for it--so be it.

exbeliever:You keep reading these posts as if I am attacking you personally (while, naturally, accusing me of misreading all your posts). You wrote:

---"And what do you mean 'regardless of any evidence presented to you. . .'

Perhaps you forgot about this comment section in which I begged you to present "an argument for the existence of your god" [etc.]"---

Why do you take "regardless of any evidence presented to you" to be me referring to you, or to atheists in general, at all? Is it because you implicitly know that your view is based on falsehood? After all, I simply wrote:

"It takes courage to do something difficult--to deny something that's true, for example, and to hold to that falsehood regardless of any evidence presented to you."

This is most certainly true, is it not? In fact, I would wager you would argue that that is how I am. But you are merely reading more into the text and are judging it based on what you imply me to mean by it rather than what I really said.

"What evidence? Present it, pal! I begged you to before and you refused; now you are trying to mock atheists for not being persuaded by evidence that you refuse to give!"

Firstly, I did not say it was evidence that I would give that you are ignoring. Instead, in your position, it is God Himself you are ignoring, which is really all the evidence you need. (Yes, I know you disagree with this, but whether your agree or not does not change the state of reality.) Secondly, let us suppose that I was addressing my comments specifically to you and it was referring to my evidence: if we did have a common starting ground, then it would most certainly be possible for me to offer you evidence; however, you do not even realize that our current positions have no common ground, which is why it is futile to present anything to you from my position.

It doesn't debunk (or innoculate you from) Pascal's wager because being confronted by the reality of God means being confronted by the reality of the one true living God. Atheists know Muslims worship a false idol; a moon god; the devil himself. Atheists spend their lives attacking Christianity for a reason...

Pascal's Wager is not an argument to be debunked, but a realistic presentation on every person's situation. It is not an argument for God's existance, as many misconstrue it to be, but rather motivator, something to say "do not take your eternal post-humous destination with complacency." Without attacking spektics with Christian dogma, or even attacking the athiests dogma, he just says what I wish more Christian leaders would say "be real, honest, vulnerable to yourself, and once you've considered all of the factors, see where you want to place your bet, there are only four possibilites."

If there is an ultamite truth, and it is arbitrary (turtles all the way down), than it doesn't matter what I do or believe, justice is then merely a human concept and where I go is not up to me in any way. But if justice is external to humanity at all, then where did it come from?

Pascal's Wager is an argument by definition. Whether it is a "motivator" or not is another issue. The wager is a popular demonstration of the false dilemma fallacy in first year logic classes, and an infamous tool used without much effect by internet evangelists.

North American and European atheists spend their time debunking Christianity because it is the majority faith in those areas. Middle Eastern atheists debunk Islam. Israeli atheists debunk Judaism. If there is anyplace where neo-paganism or Wicca are majority faiths, atheists there would debunk them.

I don't think Islam is any more or less deserving of debunking than Christianity, it's just not very highly accepted as a true faith in the US, and therefore there's not a lot of argument in discussing why it's not true.

Calvindude, the way some Christians treat those of us here on this Blog they have already demonized us. We are no longer persons, but evildoers and tools of Satan. We too would end up dead at the hands of Christians in a previous century, no?

So I continue arguing against a faith like yours, that can justify treating people as less than human and subsequently murdering them.

In fact, Frank Walton has repeatedly been asked not to post here, but he now posts as an anonymous person, even though the Golden Rule would lead him to think he's doing wrong here by posting.

But the Golden Rule doesn't apply to me. In fact, he can do what he wants with ethical immunity when it comes to me. That's sick, and that's what I vehemently oppose. And that's what led to tortures, beatings, whippings, and burnings at the stake. It's the same thing. You can do whatever you want to when it comes to non-persons. And you'll find Walton arguing this same way when it comes to abortion too, only I am his nonperson. I will fight to the death anyone's attempt to treat me as such. He would too.

exbeliever: Have you read the book of Daniel? Specifically, are you familiar with Daniel's 70 weeks?

I am curious what atheists (particularly former Christian atheists) think about this prophecy.

I have read the skeptics' Bible comments on Daniel, but they simply say "I won't comment on Daniel's dreams". Wikipedia's entry on Daniel had little comment, last I checked. And a search of this site turned up nothing...

Speaking of having enough "courage NOT to believe" as those around you do--that brings to mind the courage of martyrs of all types throughout human history.

Human beings have "suffered" at each other's hands for as long as human beings have had hands. "Suffering" for almost any conceivable reason, including "suffering for the Gospel," is therefore not unique. Throughout history and in fields of human endeavor as diverse as religion, politics, science, art, and education, great minds have suffered at the hands of little minds; great hearts and souls have suffered at the hands of the heartless and the soulless; obstinate hearts, minds and souls have suffered at the hands of equally obstinate hearts, minds and souls. Those inflicting the suffering often thought they were "right" to do so. And those experiencing it took succor in believing that their faith, or ideas, or actions, were "right."

Speaking of non-Christians who have suffered:

Jews have suffered for over a thousand years at the hands of Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Moslems, and Germans. Which reminds me of the Jewish story of a rabbi facing the Inquisition, who was asked to deny his faith. He asked for time to think it over. The next morning he said, "I will not become a Catholic, but I have a last request - before I'm burnt at the stake my tongue should be cut out for not replying at once. To such a question 'No!' was the only answer."

Christian antisemitism has been the cause of much Jewish suffering over the past 1900 years. And, like the modern day disavowal of the importance of pro-slavery Biblical passages, most of today's Christians disavow the importance of anti-Jewish New Testament passages, which is certainly an improvement over the past. Still, neither the antisemitic passages, nor the pro-slavery passages, have been erased from the Bible, and some people continue to find such passages "divinely inspired." According to the author of Antisemitism in the New Testament, "Nearly every book in the New Testament expresses slander and contempt for Jews. Most Christians have maintained that the New Testament is not anti-Jewish but that antisemitism arose as a result of the misunderstanding of it. Examination of the contents of the New Testament does not support this claim."

And what about the religion known as "Bahaism?" It began when the Persian holy man, Ali Muhammad (1819-1850) set out to reform Islam and bring people back to the worship of a purely spiritual God (not unlike how Jesus set out to reform the Judaism of his day). His movement caused much religious ferment. This led to his execution in 1850 by order of the Shah's chief minister and at the instigation of Muslim clerics who saw his movement as a threat to orthodox Islam. Besides Ali Muhammad, 20,000 of his followers were martyred for their beliefs. Yet the "Bahai" religion survived, and it has communities in 205 countries.

The early Mormons were persecuted by the "orthodox" Christian majority, and the founder of Mormonism was killed by a mob. Yet that religion continues to grow, sending out missionaries worldwide. As the editor of Christianity Today admitted, he had a Mormon Uncle who never converted to Evangelical Christianity but remained a Mormon, and a wonderful human being, he even adopted crippled children.

And what about agnostics, atheists, "heretical" Christians and "heretical" Muslims, all of whom have suffered at the hands of "orthodox" Christians and "orthodox" Muslims for daring to speak and publish their "blasphemous" or "heretical" ideas? Christians and Muslims have publicly burnt the books of their critics, so that even today, the words of Christianity's earliest critics only survive in the form of excerpts in the works of their Christian opponents. In colonial America, there were laws that made "blasphemy" a crime punishable by death. Even up till the early 1900s, the authors of "blasphemous" literature in Great Britain and America could be put on trial, fined, and/or imprisoned for their "crime." Some Muslims still view "blasphemy and heresy" as crimes deserving the death penalty.

As I said above, human beings have "suffered" at each other's hands for as long as human beings have had hands. "Suffering" for almost any conceivable reason and belief is therefore not unique.

And speaking of religious martyrs, proves nothing concerning the truth of anyone’s beliefs.

In fact after Christians gained control of the Roman Empire, they began persecuting others just as pagan Rome had persecuted them and their religious beliefs, only worse. Christians persecuted fellow Christian (dubbed “heretics” because their beliefs were not orthodox enough), apostates (for daring to “leave the fold”), Jews, pagans, philosophers, infidels and witches, thus creating “martyrs” galore for a wide variety of beliefs.

E.T.B.____________________________

Contrast the martyrdom of a Christian at the hands of a Roman ruler with that of an unbelieving philosopher or heretic at the hands of a Christian ruler:

The Christian refuses to burn incense before the statue of the master of the legions of Rome. He believes the terrestrial power will soon pass away; he has no sympathy with it. He looks forward to a speedy overthrow, a terrible retribution...Moreover, he hopes for a heavenly crown. He likely is a slave of a long enslaved race, despised, downtrodden here: he believes he will be before the throne of God with the elect in Heaven. The balance of pleasure is clearly on the side of martyrdom.

On the other hand, the unbelieving philosopher or heretic is resisting all the orthodox Christian influences under which he has been brought up.In the opinion of those who have brought him up, he is casting away his hopes in the future world. He has, perhaps, no sure belief in a future recompense for himself; the triumph of his cause is very distant, and must come very gradually. Yet for what he believes to be truth--for that alone he dies.

Which martyrdom testifies most to the truth of the opinions of the martyr? There may be a greater testimony to truth in the mere refusal of an honest and intelligent man to enter the Church, than in the excited devotee running towards the lions in the arena.

D. G. Ritchie, Philosophical Studies___________________________

To die for an idea is to place a pretty high price upon conjecture.

Anatole France, The Revolt of the Angels (citing Montaigne?)___________________________

The mob that would die for a belief seldom hesitates to inflict death upon any opposing heretical group.

Ellen Glasgow, I Believe___________________________

Man’s power to adore is responsible for all his crimes: a man who loves a god unduly forces other men to love his god, eager to exterminate them if they refuse.

We only kill in the name of a god or of his counterfeits: the excesses provoked by the goddess Reason [during the French Revolution], or by the concepts of “nation,” “class,” or “race,” are akin to those of the Inquisition or of the Reformation [and its Thirty Years War wherein Christians killed Christian galore; not to mention inter-Priotestant rivarlies, persecutions, heresy hunts, and Protestant witch hunts that followed].

The ages of [religious] fervor abound in bloody exploits: a mystical saint like Teresa of Avilla could only be the contemporary of the auto-da-fe [burning heretics alive in public], a Luther the contemporary of the Peasants’ Revolt [Luther wrote in favor of the princes hacking and slaying the peasants without mercy]. In every mystic outburst, the moans of victims parallel the moans of ecstasy.

I feel safer with a [skeptic] like Pyrrho than with a Saint Paul, for a jesting wisdom is gentler than an unbridled sanctity. In the fervent mind you always find the camouflaged beast of prey.

The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster.

No human beings more dangerous than those who have suffered for a belief: the great persecutors are recruited among the martyrs not quite beheaded. Far from diminishing the appetite for power, suffering exasperates it.[E. M. Cioran, “Genealogy of Fanaticism,” A Short History of Decay]

For #3, the date is said to match the end point of the inspiration of Old Testament scripture. I have not been able to validate that.

The ending date (final week) is unknown. There is some indication that "the one who hinders must be removed". Possibly the Holy Spirit (embodied in the Church).

I find it remarkable that a relativley simple calculation would yield an exact day that is reasonable. Using slight variations (365 day years or shifting the start date) does not point to any historic figure. Does anyone here deny the historic impact of Jesus?

By "Frank" I mean Frank Walton. Frank knows the names of some fallacies, but he apparently does not understand them since he habitually accuses people of using fallacies even when they are not. It's possible that Frank does understand the meanings of the fallacies he accuses other people of making, but if that's the case then he knowingly makes false accusations. For example, Frank would probably call this post an ad hominem fallacy. The mistake is that, while this post might be considered an attack on his person, the attack is not being used to draw any irrelevant conclusion.

In Frank's honour, I have taken to calling people that exhibit similar mislabelling tendencies "Frank." Whether you actually are Frank is of little consequence. You happen to write very much like him, and I would not be surprised in the slightest if it turned out that you are Frank.

rnedbrek, I am sorry, but this is numerology, pure and simple. Come up with a (wrong) start date, apply a (wrong) yearly standard, and consequently come up with a (wrong) ending date.

1. Look at your starting date.

According to Daniel 9:25, it is the “going forth of the order to restore and build Jerusalem.” Nehemiah 2:7 is NOT an order to rebuild Jerusalem, but rather are letters of passage. They don’t apply. Notice, further (and the apologist always breezes over this) there was no order in place. It was a request for Nehemiah to take a leave of absence, as it were.

Like asking your boss to take a day off to golf. There is no order that you MUST golf. Just that you get the day off.

But even at that, assume we have this as a starting date. Nisan 1, 445 BCE.

2. Calculating the date. As anyone can see, using a Gregorian calendar, adding 483 years to 445 BCE puts me to 39 CE. (Don’t forget we go from 1 BCE to 1 CE) This places Jesus as much too late, being post Pontius Pilate.

Using the Jewish Calendar is equally problematic, as they, too, add a Month to justify the calendar, which would also put it too late. What to do? Bingo *snaps fingers* create a “prophetic month” of only 360 days. (12 months by 30 days.) Course we could try lunar months, but that puts us too soon. Who came up with a 30 day month in “prophetic” years? The person that wanted it closer to the time of Jesus.

Is there any reason to justify this new calculation, based on Daniel’s prophetic ability?

But even at THAT, I will grant you prophetic months. STILL a problem.

3. Ending date.

This puts us (assuming Nisan 1) at Nisan 7 32 C.E. Problem. Jesus died on Nisan 15. Hmm. What to do? *snaps fingers again* Fudge it a bit, by saying that it was the triumphal entry, which puts it about seven days earlier or so, and hope no one sees that we have, again, arbitrarily picked a date out of the air. Oh, and if you look at that link, you will see that calculation puts the date in 29 C.E. I did find one for your April 6 date, though. Wrong Year

Further, to keep your 32 CE year, we have to sacrifice the historicity of Matthew and Luke. Is the prophecy THAT important, that one is willing to say the Gospels are historically inaccurate? Matthew places Jesus’ birth at 4 B.C.E. Using his staring ministry at “about” age 30 (Luke 3:23) this would mean a range of 26 CE to 28 CE. Giving him 1 or three years of ministry (depending on the gospel) we have a range of death of 27 CE at the least to 31 CE at the most. Again, too early for the 32 CE we need for this prophecy.

Using Luke’s date of Birth of 6 C.E., we now have his ministry starting at 35 C.E. to 37 C.E. I don’t have to show that adding any years at all would put it way over the 32 C.E.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that the legend places Jesus’ death squarely in the 30-33 C.E. range. I think, though, a literal historical reading of Matthew or Luke does not. This prophecy is equally as difficult.

But even at that, there are STILL problems.

4. What is the 3 1/2 weeks?

After the 69 weeks, in the middle of the last week, the Messiah will “bring an end to sacrifice and offering.” Assuming we use your dates, and this “prophetic year” system, we have 1260 days, or September 18, 35 C.E. What happened then to end sacrifice and offering? In your words, “a simple calculation that reveals an exact date.” If you find it so remarkable that Jesus is found at the end of this puzzle, we shall continue and find…….what at the 35 C.E. date?

At this point the apologist abandons the “prophetic calendar” and says that Daniel is talking about something completely different here. An actual week. That the 3 1/2 days is 3 1/2 days. Roughly corresponding to time Jesus was buried. Viola! Another fulfilled prophecy.

nebrek, have you ever seen how people take some portion of Nostradamus and back fill it into a recent event. Do you think that is legitimate prophecy? Naw, just people trying to fit the facts. I have seen guys fold $20 bills to look like two towers burning. Same thing.

If they want this as a prophecy, it looks just like the parlor tricks of a magician. Change the starting date, use a different calendar, and get the wrong ending date. But it all looks so close, why look at the details? Because it falls apart in the details.

DagoodS:Thanks for the extra links and info. I will need to investigate. Like I said, I read this in a book. I haven't studied Daniel much, I'm not entirely sure what the intended message is. It was just a awakening for me.

I think I would take Pascal up on his wager if it meant I could bang that girl in the pet shop. No, I don't mean *in* the pet shop - I mean the girl that work in the pet shop. Ok?

Or, a million bucks. Then I could get a big medallion and just lure her to myself with my unbuttoned shirt.

Anyway, IF the Bible were true, the ones who God is most certainly coming after are the Trinitarians because they worship Jesus - the "Man of Sin" mentioned several times in the Bible. They bear the hateful Trinity number on their foreheads. The worshiped Jesus is the antichrist:

2 Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;4 **Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God**.5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Note that it does not say "they worship the wrong man" but rather, they worship a man, a creature, as if he is God.

So here:

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.Re 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.Re 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.Re 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.Re 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,Re 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Trinitarians deny that Jesus came in the flesh - ie: that he was just a man - a sinner.